71040 The Disney Castle Discussion

[CM4Sci]

Right now you can expect 5.

[notpennysboat]

Right now you can expect 5.

I read that, I'm really happy about Minnie's red dress and Tinkerbell is a great addition, thank you for all the informations you put in here. Yesterday, someone from the LEGO Store told me that they've seen some prototype and it seems to be inspired by a MOC fan :)

[AFOLguy1970]

I just thought about something interesting. Would people prefer a...

-Cheaper ($150-$250) facade of a castle

OR

-More expensive ($250-$350) full castle?

Because I'm gonna take a guess and say it'll be one of those two options. Whether either could be very impressive is a different story.

Additionally, they could make a more expensive facade and pack a lot more detail into both the exterior and the interior, since they'll have less to worry about by not adding a back. It could also give us additional models like parade floats and whatnot.

My guess is that we will see an open back model that is higher than $200--possibly even approaching the Death Star range at $400. Even if it is not at minifigure scale, it has a lot of detail and turrets to cover. Having an open back will allow the model to have the necessary height to give justice to its many towers. If done right, this should be taller than than the ghostbusters HQ, Temple of Airjutzu, or any modular. It might not be quite as tall as Tower of Orthanc, but it should be fairly commanding for a Lego set.

[notpennysboat]

I hope we're expecting a set as large as Firehouse Headquarters, that would mean we could expect a lot of characters :)

By "as large" I was talking about the number of pieces (4634 pieces), which could explain a 71040 set with a price like the Firehouse Headquarters (350$) in comparison with the D2C Simpson sets (2523 & 2179 pieces for 200$)

[brick-fu]

I whole heartedly agree. If Lego makes this anything less than a $300-400 set, prepare to be underwhelmed. I want this to be a centerpiece of my collection. disney has a HUGE fan base, that have proven to be willing to spend big bucks on merchandise. I really don't want to see Lego play conservative on this one.

[0tter]

Doesn't CM4Sci keep saying that it isn't that big?

Why do we keep raising expectations?

[xboxtravis7992]

If it's $300+ I'd struggle with that price tag. I think Modular Buildings have proven that, indeed something big can be made in the lower price ranges; the town hall for example clocks in at $200 and is rather tall, if this castle has an open back it could dedicate bricks to the front facade being wider and taller.

But that is part of the reason I mentioned that the Sleeping Beauty Castle in Anaheim would have made a better set; in real life it is actually a smaller building, and would scale a lot easier into Lego. According to Wikipedia the Cinderella's Castle in Disney World is a full 100 feet (30 m) taller than the Disneyland Castle! If Lego can pull of the added height in a reasonable price I'll be impressed, but I will state it now, the other castle would have been an easier set up...

[Amazing Bricks]

Doesn't CM4Sci keep saying that it isn't that big?

Why do we keep raising expectations?

How would anyone know how big it is yet? He's just assuming the size, it will look fine.

[rodiziorobs]

I hope we're expecting a set as large as Firehouse Headquarters, that would mean we could expect a lot of characters :)

See, and I am of an opposite mindset; I would rather have a majority of the characters come out in the CMF series, so that I can pick and choose which ones to pick up, and at reasonable prices. As this set will likely be too cost-prohibitive for me to ever pick up, the figs included with it will probably never be mine either, and will likely command too high a price in the aftermarket to be worth it to me.

Although for now, the minifigs we know are included aren't really worrying me yet. That being said, I really hope this set won't include Goofy as an exclusive.

Edited April 24, 2016 by rodiziorobs

[Karalora]

I would have preferred Sleeping Beauty Castle for my own reasons, but I understand why they would go with Cinderella's and I will probably buy it anyway. I want an entire theme of sets based on the Disney theme parks and the only way to get that is to show interest in the ones they produce.

[CM4Sci]

How would anyone know how big it is yet? He's just assuming the size, it will look fine.

Not, actually, word has it that some bit the blue tops are 4-ish studs wide and a lower section of the castle is about 8-ish wide.

Actually had a dream, last night, about this and Big Ben. (crazy right?) I saw it "accidentally" at some place and I saw Merida, a ton of other minifigures, and the thing was huge - didn't look like a set, more of a MOC. But, hey, that was a dream.

Edited April 24, 2016 by CM4Sci

[brick-fu]

CM4Sci, thank you for all the information you have provided! Are you saying that the four main rotundas at the front of the castle are 8 wide each, and some of the upper spires of the castle are 4 wide? If so that would still be a fairly impressive piece!

[milojthatch]

If it's $300+ I'd struggle with that price tag. I think Modular Buildings have proven that, indeed something big can be made in the lower price ranges; the town hall for example clocks in at $200 and is rather tall, if this castle has an open back it could dedicate bricks to the front facade being wider and taller.

But that is part of the reason I mentioned that the Sleeping Beauty Castle in Anaheim would have made a better set; in real life it is actually a smaller building, and would scale a lot easier into Lego. According to Wikipedia the Cinderella's Castle in Disney World is a full 100 feet (30 m) taller than the Disneyland Castle! If Lego can pull of the added height in a reasonable price I'll be impressed, but I will state it now, the other castle would have been an easier set up...

See, and I am of an opposite mindset; I would rather have a majority of the characters come out in the CMF series, so that I can pick and choose which ones to pick up, and at reasonable prices. As this set will likely be too cost-prohibitive for me to ever pick up, the figs included with it will probably never be mine either, and will likely command too high a price in the aftermarket to be worth it to me.

Although for now, the minifigs we know are included aren't really worrying me yet. That being said, I really hope this set won't include Goofy as an exclusive.

I'm in the same boat guys,only have so much money. Even $200 may be more than my wallet can handle once. If it's $100 to $150, while I'll have to save up, that is a much better price point for me. I'd rather collect parts along the way and add on to the castle to make it bigger.

[0tter]

Remember that modulars aren't licensed. There will be a significant price increase on any Disney castle compared to a regular LEGo castle, or modular.

[Robert8]

Not, actually, word has it that some bit the blue tops are 4-ish studs wide and a lower section of the castle is about 8-ish wide.

Actually had a dream, last night, about this and Big Ben. (crazy right?) I saw it "accidentally" at some place and I saw Merida, a ton of other minifigures, and the thing was huge - didn't look like a set, more of a MOC. But, hey, that was a dream.

Merida confirmed

[Blondie-Wan]

Remember that modulars aren't licensed. There will be a significant price increase on any Disney castle compared to a regular LEGo castle, or modular.

I don't think we can really know what effect the licensing will have on the price.

[0tter]

Licensing fees are passed onto the consumer. Production costs + profits + licensing fees > production cost + profits.

I think it's safe to assume it would cost more than an unlicensed LEGO set, and would therefore be quite expensive if it were as large/detailed as a modular.

[Marvelous Spidey]

Licensing fees are passed onto the consumer. Production costs + profits + licensing fees > production cost + profits.

I think it's safe to assume it would cost more than an unlicensed LEGO set, and would therefore be quite expensive if it were as large/detailed as a modular.

Definitely true for most sets, but the Ghostbusters HQ is a recent example that occasionally licensed sets aren't overpriced when they're large.

[Blondie-Wan]

Licensing fees are passed onto the consumer. Production costs + profits + licensing fees > production cost + profits.

I think it's safe to assume it would cost more than an unlicensed LEGO set, and would therefore be quite expensive if it were as large/detailed as a modular.

Except that other factors come into play. For one, we can certainly assume the fact it is a Disney castle will make it possible to sell it to a much larger prospective audience than they could ever effectively market a huge, expensive set of a generic castle to, thus amortizing the set's production costs over a larger production run than a generic castle of comparable size would get.

Contrary to popular opinion, licensed sets aren't always priced more than comparably-sized non-licensed sets (or rather, since sets of both types are designed to hit specific price points, it may be better said that licensed sets of a given price don't always necessarily contain less than non-licensed sets at the same price point). Consider the Minifigures line accompanying this very set - the Disney Minifigures sport an MSRP of $3.99 each, the same price as not only the two Simpsons series but also Series 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the "regular", non-licensed line.

[0tter]

You make some good points. Certainly the logic hasn't applied to the licensed minifigures, and LEGO must be absorbing the licensing fees elsewhere. But there certainly are cases of licensed products at the same price point containing less "stuff" than non-licensed stuff (currently City's Fire Utility Truck: simple vehicle, three minfigures, trailer, small tower; vs Jurassic World's Dilophosaurus Ambush: simple vehicle, three minifigues (granted one of them is a dinosaur) and a small build gyrosphere), so there is certainly a precedent.

I hope that the costs can be spread over a higher production run, or absorbed elsewhere, and we will get a large, detailed set at what is popularly perceived to be a "reasonable price"... I just doubt that it's likely. And a lot of the talk so far has been "I would love to see..." and "It would be great if..." pie-in-the-sky sort of stuff. I'm just trying to ground the conversation a little so when the final product is revealed we don't have a lot of disappointed prospective customers, and the "LEGO missed a great opportunity", "total pass" kinds of comments.

If we want big sizes, high piece-count, lots of detail, lots of minifigs, fronts-backs-and-sides we should be prepared to pay for that. If we want "reasonable" price, we should be prepared to compromise on some of the other stuff.

Sometimes collectors can be their own worst enemies.

Edited April 26, 2016 by 0tter

[brick-fu]

I would personally rather see more sets like the ghostbusters firehouse that are large and detailed. If they cost $300 or $350 then so be it. The way I see it, there will only be a few such sets every year. I can pass on some of the smaller, less impressive sets in order to save for the big sets. Nothing good ever comes from designing a set to meet a price point. Of course I'm just one person, and I'm sure there are people who will disagree.

[gedren_y]

The parallel between standard and licensed CMFs is inexact. Standard CMF costs, unlike regular sets, also include cost coverage for the Minifigures Online game. That is why standard and licensed CMFs cost the same.

I expect this set to be priced in one of the upper price points already established, possibly somewhere near the 76052 Batman Classic TV Series - Batcave. The broader spectrum of appeal, including non-FOLs, should be similar.

[tafkatb]

I would personally rather see more sets like the ghostbusters firehouse that are large and detailed. If they cost $300 or $350 then so be it. The way I see it, there will only be a few such sets every year. I can pass on some of the smaller, less impressive sets in order to save for the big sets. Nothing good ever comes from designing a set to meet a price point. Of course I'm just one person, and I'm sure there are people who will disagree.

You say that as if the large sets aren't designed to meet a price point.

[brick-fu]

I just wish that the designers weren't handicapped by bean counters. It would be nice to see at least one or two sets per year like the ghostbusters firehouse or the helicarrier. I honestly believe that collectors would pay $500 for a set if they really got their money's worth. Take the classic bat cave for instance. I am a fan of the series, so it was a day one purchase for me. However I'm willing to admit that it probably needed a little more rock work on the area around the poles, and maybe another room or two upstairs to make the set a little more symmetrical. I think most true collectors would rather pay a little more and grumble under their breath at the cash register, than end up with sets they are ultimately disappointed in. The assault on hoth is another example of this. With just a little more included to tie everything together it would be such a nicer set. In the end, I'm still a fan, and I will continue to buy and enjoy what Lego puts out. We all have our opinions though!

[Soupperson1]

So Daisy is the same except medium lavender?